Degenerative Politics and Youth Criminal Justice Policy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to determine whether degenerative politics, a central proposition of democratic policy design theory or social constructivism, has been evident in Canadian youth criminal justice policy. Using a synchronic and diachronic case study design, the article conducts a rigorous content analysis of the legislative debates leading to theYoung Offenders Actin 1982 and theYouth Criminal Justice Actin 2002. Policy makers’ social constructions of violent and nonviolent young offenders are measured, along with the benefit/burden content of the legislation, to determine whether young offenders have been caught in the downward spiral of degenerative politics. It finds evidence of degenerative politics for violent young offenders but not for nonviolent young offenders and explores some of the reasons for this divergence. Related Articles Dauda , Carol L . 2010 . “.” Politics & Policy 38 (): 1159 ‐ 1185 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00394.x/full Dyck , Joshua J ., and Annika Hagley . 2012 . “.” Politics & Policy 40 (): 195 ‐ 220 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00346.x/full Traut , Carol A ., and Craig F. Emmert . 2003 . “.” Politics & Policy 31 (): 296 ‐ 312 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2003.tb00150.x/full Related Media . 2013 . “Youth Criminal Justice in Action.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = KdZacGdgJrs . 2015 . “Public Policy Theory and Democracy.” http://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/teaching-ressource/public-policy-theory-and-democracy/9
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".